Subject: [Idr] draft-chavali-bgp-prefixlimit-01.txt as an IDR WG document

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 06:59:54 -0700

Folks,

We receive a request to accept draft-chavali-bgp-prefixlimit-01.txt
as an IDR WG document. Please send comments to the list. The deadline
for comments is April 29, 2004. 

Yakov.

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 18:28:47 +0300 (EEST)

> for comments is April 29, 2004. 

The applicability does not seem to be sufficiently clear.

That is, people use prefix limits for a *reason*.  Once set, they're 
set until they are changed.  There's no urgent need to specify 
anything here.

However, I agree that it might not hurt to have some option that could 
be used to inform the peer on your limits, so that:
 - the operator of the peer could notice this when examining the 
neighbor's info (i.e., when contemplating about advertising new 
prefixes), or
 - if the peer exceeded the prefix limits, the peer's operator would 
notice that a warning/stop threshold has been reached (this could 
result in an SNMP trap, flashing led, or whatever.)

I fail to see a need for anything more than that, and the current 
document *seems* to be more complex than that.

Unless I'm mistaken, I'm not sure if going forward with this draft is 
a good idea.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 18:28:47 +0300 (EEST)

---

From: Srikanth Chavali <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:06:36 -0400

Hi Pekka ,

>Unless I'm mistaken, I'm not sure if going forward with this draft is 
The draft addresses the issue described on a per AFI/SAFI pair and hence 
the need for additional mechanism.
The requirement for different limits has come from the SPs which is why 
that is included. Thats the reason for
tailoring the mechanism around it.

srikanth chavali

---

From: Srikanth Chavali <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:06:36 -0400

Hi Pekka ,

srikanth chavali

---

From: Jeff Barrows <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:00:45 -0400 (EDT)

Not to limit cool/smart thinking, but I believe that
   the level of effort and/or complexity here exceeds
   the return.

   This has never been an issue in any of the major SP
   networks that I've played with.

   While protecting at the edges is of interest, sharing or
   communicating policy [such as thresholds] has been more
   of an area of concern (risk-wise) than a priority.

   An e-mail, phone call, or contractual arrangement should
   suffice in other cases.

  - jsb

> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 18:28:47 +0300 (EEST)
> From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
> To: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chavali-bgp-prefixlimit-01.txt as an IDR WG
>     document
>

---

From: Jeff Barrows <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:00:45 -0400 (EDT)

- jsb

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:19:59 -0400

(Following up to original thread for completeness.)

I don't think that the draft as it stands is appropriate as a WG doc 
because it's rather too complex.  As noted in my other message, we've 
submitted another draft, draft-keyur-prefixlimit-orf-00, which 
represents an alternative approach to achieving the same goals.

Regards,

--John

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:19:59 -0400

Regards,

--John

---

From: Srikanth Chavali <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 10:44:16 -0400

In response to some of the comments made on this draft in the WG, we 
have made some changes  to the
01 version of the draft. The following is the link to the new draft 
which is based of 00 version as suggested by some.

http://ndzh.com/idr/Drafts/draft-chavali-bgp-prefixlimit-02.txt

This is has been submitted as an internet draft today. Please forward 
your your comments to the
list.

Thanks

srikanth chavali

---

From: Srikanth Chavali <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 10:44:16 -0400

Thanks

srikanth chavali